Summary of findings 6. Post‐surgical medical therapy compared to Pre and post‐surgical medical therapy with GnRHa for endometriosis surgery.
| Post‐surgical medical therapy compared to Pre and post‐surgical medical therapy with GnRHa for endometriosis surgery | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with endometriosis surgery Intervention: Post‐surgical medical therapy Comparison: Pre and post‐surgical medical therapy with GnRHa | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Pre and post‐surgical medical therapy with GnRHa | Post‐surgical medical therapy | |||||
| Recurrence ‐ AFS Score ‐ Total AFS score | The mean Recurrence ‐ AFS Score ‐ Total AFS score in the intervention groups was 3.49 higher (5.1 lower to 12.08 higher) | 25 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3 | |||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 No adequate explanation of randomisation and allocation concealment 2 CI crossed line of no effect and substantive harm and benefit. 3 Evidence based on a single trial